1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UK General Election 2017

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Risky, 8 Jun 2017.

  1. Byron C

    Byron C Multimodder

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    4,494
    I can't help but draw comparisons to the public reaction regarding President Bush when hurricane Katrina hit. Katrina was on a totally different scale to this fire, but that doesn't diminish the anguish felt by people directly affected by both tragedies. Even if it is a PR stunt it'll win far more supporters for Corbyn (though FWIW I don't think that, given Corbyn's track record, this is purely PR move on his part - Kensington isn't exactly that far from Islington North, this is pretty much on his doorstep; of course my monthly direct debit to the Labour party means that my views are just slightly biased).
     
  2. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    It doesn't really matter whether Corbyn is doing it for the PR or because he genuinely cares; either way he demonstrates an awareness of how people feel and a preparedness to listen to that. And that is what people want in a politician. PR stands for public relations after all.

    Whereas Theresa May shows no awareness whatsoever of how people feel or any interest in it. Whether that's a genuine cognitive deficit or plain indifference doesn't matter; either makes her an unsuitable PM in the people's eyes.



    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 15 Jun 2017
  3. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    Oh jeeeezus I have a feeling there is a lotto reply to while I've been busy, I'm not going to look...
    Just going to reply while I have time on this.

    I'd just want to say that firstly I did reference constantly increasing/diminishing returns to scale first and the put in brackets about L.R.A.C however I am going off memory (I don't want to look I'll get drawn into replying to something and I should be in bed :D)

    Secondly on the use of economics wonk speak it is a continuously difficult thing for people with economics training to connect their understanding to a more general understanding. Which hands up, mea culpa, I should do better on sometimes. (I would say query it with,me but I am prone to long periods of absence)

    Third in defence of wonk speak; there can be another issue of having very long explanations for concepts, that if they are not understood on the part of the interlocutor can often be remedied by a very quick Google of say lrac economics. However that does not negate my responsibility as outlined in 2. But can make for much less wall of text replies.

    Although I could remedy that with a citation to a website or an explanation by myself of the concept mentioned at the bottom of a post, so there's that. :duh:
    However even being aaacutely aware of this problem and being a typical human being it is very difficult to change behaviour so I'll likely continue to make the mistake again.

    Oh and BTW to Byron c ( I had to look) I have explained ricardian equivalence numerous times, throughout this discussion as the tendency for people to save extra money from a government stimulus in expectation of future higher taxes. And it is basically the easiest thing to Google so if I'm baffling you with bs then there would be your bafflement resolved in 30 seconds. It's not bs it has a genuine possibility to severely detract from the effectiveness of keynesian policies*. Now I would prefer to discuss and argue in good faith not have bad intentions assumed about me by someone simply because they assume someone with my political or economic views are automatically Ill intentioned. As I said earlier some of the responsibility is on me to try not to put too much wonk speak in posts however my issue is with your tone and insinuations.

    * if you want a rough explanation for keynesian policies. It is generally the use of government spending and taxation to make recessions less deep and booms less boomy, I suppose, by spending more and/or taxing less in recessions and spending less and/or taxing more in a boom. Now it is quite possible that you actually understand what a keynesian policy is however I don't know what you don't know. It could have saved me the few extra minutes making sure you understand any possible thing you may not understand by simply assuming you know until you say "gee disequilibria define what keynesian policies are roughly speaking?" or just reply clearly understanding the definition.
     
    Last edited: 16 Jun 2017
  4. yodasarmpit

    yodasarmpit Modder

    Joined:
    27 May 2002
    Posts:
    11,428
    Likes Received:
    237
    One living in a bubble, with no understanding of empathy and another looking to politically capitalise on a horror situation.

    Sadly, this was the choice for most in the election. Hopefully both will be gone soon.
     
    Last edited: 16 Jun 2017
  5. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,090
    Likes Received:
    6,639
    I don't understand 'normal' people who donate to political parties. Like, I understand some industry bigwig hefting over a few million in exchange for a nudge-nudge-wink-wink promise that matters pertaining to his or her industry will be voted on in a particular way, that makes perfect sense to me. But a bloke on the street forking over a few meagre tanners every month? Boggles my mind, it does.

    MPs get a basic annual salary of £74,962 a year, plus allowances including but not limited to the costs of running an office, employing staff (who are invariably wives, children, and other family members), and having a second home in London. When you're a government minister, you also get a second ministerial salary on top of that £74,962 a year plus allowances - anything from an extra £23,697 if you're a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to £68,827 if you've a cabinet member and £76,762 if you're the PM, all on top of the £74,962 don't forget, while if you're a member of the House of Lords as well as a member of the cabinet you get an extra £101,038. Oh, and your food - and booze! - are taxpayer-subsidised when you're in the House of Commons.

    So, even ignoring all the MPs who have a second job - or third, or fourth, eh, Geoffrey Cox QC MP, who earned £452,545 in FY2014 on top of his MP salary and allowances - it's reasonable to assume that a given MP earns a minimum of £74,962 a year - rising at 1.3% a year, don't forget, and when was the last time you had a pay rise? - jumping to as high as £143,789 if you're a cabinet member before they start claiming expenses which can add literally hundreds of thousands to the total.

    Given the above, why would I, who earns far, far less than those figures, ever consider handing my hard-earned over to a political party? Let their own MPs fund the bloody things!

    </rant>
     
  6. Byron C

    Byron C Multimodder

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    4,494
    Oh is that what he's doing here? I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

    [​IMG]

    Because when Corbyn became party leader I realised that he shared many of my views: on social/economic policy, on defence, on Trident (although Labour have now committed to renewing Trident), and so on. For the first time in my life I realised that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn was a party I could truly support, as opposed to just picking the best of a bad bunch.

    The money I send them isn't just a donation:

    [​IMG]

    For the first time in my life it's made me want to actively participate in politics, and while a fiver a month for party membership may be a token effort, it's more effort than I've ever made in my life. I haven't actually had time to campaign but to be honest that's not really my cup of tea anyway: bugger knocking on the doors of strangers! :D But I have been to a few local meetings, when time permits.
     
  7. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,090
    Likes Received:
    6,639
    Having never attended a political party's meeting: do you actually get to influence politics, or is it more of a "meet the author" kind of thing? Does your councillor ask your opinion - the membership, I mean, not you specifically - on political matters during the meeting?
     
  8. yodasarmpit

    yodasarmpit Modder

    Joined:
    27 May 2002
    Posts:
    11,428
    Likes Received:
    237
    To answer Byron, yes I do believe it was a calculated move for him to attend. Although, he would be damned if he didn't - bit of a no win situation for politicians.
     
  9. Byron C

    Byron C Multimodder

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    4,494
    So the first few meetings I attended were to discuss candidate selection for local council seats. I largely sat back during that because I knew very little about the local councillors; to be honest, most of it washed over me.

    The last meeting I went to was to discuss local issues within the constituency, and by far the biggest issue raised was some roadworks that had been carried out recently. Some speed bumps have been installed on the entrances/exits to a roundabout which is a bit of a traffic chokepoint; the speed bumps are way too high and there's poor signage to warn you. Following that meeting the council have acknowledged that the work was carried out incorrectly and have instructed the contractors to, at their own expense, reduce the height of the speed bumps. Some of the work has been done, but you know how it is with roadworks...

    That's kinda not what's implied by saying:

    That implies that the sole motivation for visiting the scene is to take political advantage, and that there was little thought given to sympathising with/supporting the people directly affected. Of course visiting the scene is going to have a positive reception - we only have to look at the reporting - but you can't honestly believe that this was the sole motivation. Theresa May probably had the same intentions, but as she did throughout the campaign she distanced herself from the people directly affected; of course that's going to play poorly in the media, and frankly they deserve the bad publicity they're getting from it.
     
  10. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,090
    Likes Received:
    6,639
    So the membership voted on candidate selection, or were simply present while higher-ups made the decisions?
    That sounds like a councillor's surgery, which is open to all constituents regardless of membership or party affiliation. Were non-Labour Party Member constituents consulted on the issues?

    Apologies for all the questions, but I've never actually met a card-carrying (literally!) member of any given political party before!
     
  11. Byron C

    Byron C Multimodder

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    4,494
    The meetings I went to were just discussions; who the candidates are, what their experience is, opinions/views from members, etc. I don't know what the actual selection process was I'm afraid - I only went to one or two of those meetings, like I said it kinda washed over me and I lost interest because I knew sod all about the people involved.

    I only found out about via the office of Stephen Doughty, who is (and has been since 2012) the Labour MP for my constituency, and IIRC it was specifically a party member meeting - pretty sure I had to have my membership card for that too.

    No worries, I'm sorry I'm not much more help - I haven't really had the time to be more engaged.

    Here's the agenda items from one of the party meetings I missed earlier this year - sorry it's in caps, but that's how it was typed up - and this one was members-only again.

    • MEMBERSHIP: ATTRACTING MEMBERS TO MEETINGS
    • LOCAL ISSUES IN ST MELLONS: TODDLERS PARK/ABC PARK/ UNDERPASS LIGHTING/HUB/106 FUNDING/KWIK SAVE/NEW BUILD
    • LOCAL ISSUES TROWBRIDGE: LITTER NEW SCHOOL/PAVEMENTS/BUS ROUTES
    • COUNCILLORS REPORT CITY WIDE ISSUES: CITY BUDGET/ELY PAPER MILL SITE
    • WELSH ASSEMBLY/NATIONAL NEWS: VAUGHAN GETHIN/LABOURS DAY OF ACTION

    Much of the "regular" meetings are about local issues. After all it's your local MP you vote for on polling day, not the party leader.
     
  12. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    To be fair to Corbyn: what can he be accused of besides being aware of what people need and being prepared to give it to them?

    It's like saying health professionals are only compassionate to their patients because it's their job to be. And yes, it is their job, and actually, they are doing that job because they are fundamentally compassionate people, and frankly the patient doesn't care what motivates them as long as they are compassionate.


    "I'm not a nice person. You may get that impression because my profession aims to create nice food for people and give them a wonderful gastronomic experience. But I am just a **** who likes to cook." --Lenny Henry, in Chef


    Meanwhile:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 16 Jun 2017
  13. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,090
    Likes Received:
    6,639
    Absolutely everything in that list could have come from a councillor's surgery, with the exception of "attracting members to meetings." I'm afraid I'm still failing to see the benefit you receive from membership: you could save yourself £5 a month and have just as much insight and input into local issues simply by attending your councillor's surgery, with the added bonus that if you end up with a local councillor from a different party you can still attend.

    Not sure what input can have been had in the first local-issues bulletpoint, either. According to the Cardiff Government website, both councillors for Old St Mellons are Tories: Councillor Joel Williams (surgery on the 1st Saturday of every month) and Councillor Dianne Rees (same). If it was a Labour-only meeting, then only the councillors for Trowbridge will have been present.

    Looks like Councillor Michael Michael (hell of a name!) has his surgery on the 1st Wednesday of each month at Trowbridge Community Centre, as a point of interest.
     
  14. Byron C

    Byron C Multimodder

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    4,494
    My intention with joining the party was partly to support the party itself - Labour doesn't rely on a comparatively small number of wealthy donors - but also to get more involved in politics: campaigning, party policy, leadership elections, local issues, etc. Plenty of people talk the talk but few walk the walk, or something like that. On that latter point I have largely failed if I'm honest; although there have been mitigating circumstances, given the personal stuff I've had over the last year or so. I don't expect any immediate benefit to me personally, that's not really the point of joining. Much of the local stuff, as you point out, doesn't require party membership.

    Yeah that's not surprising for Old St Mellons... St Mellons, where I live, is in the Trowbridge ward though and it's a different ward to Old St Mellons (don't ask, I don't know why either!).
     
  15. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,090
    Likes Received:
    6,639
    Which brings me back to my original point: the Labour Party has 262 MPs, who are each earning an absolutely minimum of £74,962 a year - and in some cases double or treble that - for a bare-minimum total joint income of £19,640,044. Don't you think the Labour Party should be getting some of that cash before asking the likes of you or I to fork over our own hard-earned - especially as that entire £19,640,044 is ours before taxation in the first place!
    That's just confusing. It's like the train station for Pudsey 'ere, which is called New Pudsey. There is no Old Pudsey (any more), and Pudsey itself is just called Pudsey. Daft!
     
  16. Byron C

    Byron C Multimodder

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    4,494
    But in that case, why single out Labour? Surely Tory MPs should sacrifice part of their £23,762,954 income instead of relying on hedge funds and wealthy corporations for party funding? MP wages are ridiculous, but I don't think we're going to change that any time soon.
     
  17. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Lover of bit-tech Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    17,090
    Likes Received:
    6,639
    Because you're a member of the Labour Party. If you were a member of any other political party, I would have used those figures instead.
     
  18. wolfticket

    wolfticket Downwind from the bloodhounds

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    3,556
    Likes Received:
    646
    I actually don't think MP's wages are ridiculous. The are in a real sense charged with the responsibility of running the country.
    It is business/lobbyist connections, both personal and party that bother me. I'm a supporter of clamping down on that, but maybe if more people who support a political party become a member and fund them directly it might help level the playing field a bit.
     
  19. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    That's my point is to create a system where everyone operates under the same rules, by abolishing CT for everyone and taxing living individuals whenever they make something from a corporation through dividends and capital gains at a new higher rate.
    Corporation tax is dead in a globalised world, it has been a useless tax for some decades now.

    2.6% is this years and it is projected to be less than that based on early returns.
    Something like 10.7 in 2010.
    I don't agree with stopping now however it is clear that when the deficit is below Nominal GDP growth then there is flexibility and debt will start to fall as a % of GDP. The analogy with cancer is too loose here (also the debt burden is the tumor here not the deficit). What we are effectively taking is a slower than expected reduction in debt to gdp. Stopping the growth of the debt burden is the primary motive of austerity.

    The next is to reduce the debt to gdp level down to pre recession levels, this is what has been abandoned in the short run. Now I think we need to get down below 40% debt to gdp, my Ideal situation would be continuous non recessionary surpluses with Debt to GDP eventually at 30% and the surplus eventually used for a sovereign wealth fund.
     
  20. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    You do realise paying MPs a salary was origionally brought in to avoid it being a job only and exclusively pursued by the rich. MPs salaries should be higher if anything, with reduced expenses.
     

Share This Page